wavemode

Probably never. This has been debated to death by both C and C++ standards committees. The consensus is that, since signed overflow is almost always a sign of a bug in the program, keeping it undefined enables compilers to optimize by assuming it never happens, and also allows sanitizers to continue to flag it to developers so that they fix their bugs (though it could be argued that, a sanitizer doesn't really have to strictly adhere to the standard, the committee apparently didn't feel that way).

It depends on the kind of company, and the context. An ethicist at a company doing drug/medical research probably mostly oversees that the company's research practices are legal and safe (and that participants give informed consent).

At typical corporation, something like a Chief Ethics and Compliance Officer (CECO) would be largely focused on legal compliance - making sure company personnel aren't engaged in bribery, fraud, insider trading etc. The value of this role (and the medical example) is to prevent lawsuits and/or prosecution.

For a company like Meta, an ethicist is likely concerned with the inherent ethical concerns of running a social media company, which impacts the mental health of its users, many of whom are minors. For AI companies, the ethics of releasing models that are capable of doing dangerous things. In name, the job probably involves giving recommendations about how to ethically implement features in the platform to minimize harm. In practice, the job probably accomplishes very little.

OpenAI was probably able to at least pretend that her role mattered... until they let their AI autonomously hack a rival company, then used the incident to score marketing points. I'm not surprised she left.

> Possible false positive because of the text was translated from Japanese to English with AI?

People say this a lot, but I've never seen Claude or any other LLM insert clichéd LLM-isms into translated text.

There's obviously a degree of interpretation and "smoothing" that goes into translation, but it doesn't rise to the level of making the entire thing sound like an AI's voice. This blog post was prompted, not translated.

The federal government outlaws "knowingly accessing a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized access" to obtain information from any "protected computer" (which, in this context, means any computer involved in interstate commerce - which, in practice, has been ruled such that it certainly includes any Internet-connected server of a corporation).

Your defense would have to be that you were authorized to access the data, or that you did not know that you weren't authorized to access the data. Not merely that the data was easily accessible.

The loser of every suit will simply always appeal the AI decision, thus requiring a human decision anyway.

> they ultimately launched what was by then the 7th or 8th AI-related product with essentially the same name

let me guess, they called it "Copliot"

Yeah but, Taxi drivers usually don't hop around from place to place. They work in a specific metro area.

Well (to make an analogy), nature produces psychopaths - some people's brains just aren't capable of empathy. Whether you characterize that observation as "legitimizing" or just "being realistic" is merely a philosophical concern.

> Although guarded methods seem necessary, unfortunately, I don’t know of any mainstream languages that allow their definition.

C++ has this feature. When you define a template class, you can use SFINAE (or, in modern C++, concepts) to make it so that certain methods only exist if the template parameter meets certain requirements.

(Though even this is often unnecessary - for something like your `flatten` example, you could just go ahead and define it unrestricted. Methods of template classes are typechecked lazily - in other words, they don't need to successfully typecheck unless they're called. For this specific use case, SFINAE/concepts would just make the error message nicer.)

Rust also has this feature, with conditional impls.

if the government was able to lie on the jobs report, why wouldn't they just continuously pretend that jobs are up from now all the way through the election? (all the way through to the presidential election, for that matter)

Curious what you mean by this. There is very, very little medical knowledge today that aligns with historical folk wisdom.

(Even simple things like "an apple a day" - apples are fine, but foods like berries, kiwis and avocados tend to have both lower sugar and much higher nutritional content.)

It can be both. Bell Labs performed a lot of speculative research while still producing economically valuable technology.

Like how OpenAI is (was?) structured as a nonprofit?

Plenty of companies in (or adjacent to) the AI space are still getting acquired and/or finding VC funding, even as funding in other spaces is drying up.

Meh. It does all sound rather grandiose, but in this startup economy I'm sure he can at least manage to get acquired.

At least he's pursuing something more novel than yet another "sandboxes for agents".

It's a well-made show, for sure. Expertly crafted, visually, and very well-acted. Though I found the pacing questionable - there were (generously) 6 episodes worth of plot spread out over a 9-episode season.

I see nothing wrong with this, neither in principle nor in practice. Also, this was merged over 6 months ago without incident. What is the purpose of this HN submission?

Haven't encountered "marbles in an airplane"-style brainteasers, but leetcode challenges are definitely still the norm at Google and other big tech. Not sure who was claiming otherwise.

For what it's worth, a GSL developer later reopened that GitHub issue and stated that they're going to look into fixing the UB. Sutter may have just been stating an assumption.

https://github.com/microsoft/GSL/issues/786#issuecomment-513...

> I'll raise this issue in the next internal GSL sync. I'd agree with y'all that this behavior: https://godbolt.org/z/4Tr1fe9xG is undesirable

GSL is not the standard library nor an internal runtime library. Its GitHub page claims that it supports a variety of compilers:

> The GSL officially supports recent major versions of Visual Studio with both MSVC and LLVM, GCC, Clang, and XCode with Apple-Clang

the new Windows Terminal had horrendous performance when it first came out. in the aftermath of the drama surrounding that, was when I first started seeing a lot of terminal emulator projects bragging about their throughput.

How do you define a trait that is itself generic? Like:

    trait ConvertTo[T]:
      fun convert(self) -> T;

Seems to create a single trait ConvertTo, for a generic type with a [T] argument, rather than allowing one to define separate implementations for ConvertTo[i32], ConvertTo[String], etc.

If all you're doing with a bunch of cash over 18 years (!) is holding it in a bank account to collect interest, you're just losing money to inflation. Bank interest is almost nothing. Better to hold stocks, or at the very least bonds if you're extremely risk-averse.

Though this needs to be put in context - maybe you actually intend for the child to be permitted to spend the cash, in which case a bank account makes plenty of sense.

Bad faith, got it.

I can't tell if you're arguing in bad faith or if you just don't actually understand anything I've been saying.

> Your hypothesis wasn't a bad instinct. But you could have followed up on it or, when confronted with evidence against it, chosen not to double down.

...huh? What solitary point of evidence has even been presented? First it was pointed out to me that I'm not a psychic, which is true but is not evidence of anything. Then it was pointed out to me that seatbelts save lives and contraception prevents pregnancy, which are also true statementsnbut are also not evidence of anything, given that both are highly effective at what they do.

If you want to present evidence of something, why don't you start by presenting evidence of this:

> Vaccines have been effective at the community level without being totally effective individually.

Let's start with, what historical vaccine had 44% effectiveness? Then, let's move on to, what historical vaccine had 44% effectiveness and was released to the public despite there already existing a 99% effective prophylactic drug for the same disease? And what was the outcome there?

If you still don't get the point I'm making, then nothing will change this and we should just end the exchange.

No, I'm not talking about moral hazard at all. I'm just talking about the poor effectiveness. If it were highly effective, like PreP and birth control are, there would be no issue in my mind.

> Seatbelt requirements did result in riskier driving. It also, on the net, saved lives.

Okay? This seems unrelated. A better analogy would be if they had invented airbags and then people stopped wearing seatbelts. (like taking a 44% effective vaccine and then stop using PreP)

> Same for every other vaccine, or e.g. birth control in respect of teenage and unwanted pregnancies.

Also unrelated. Birth control is highly effective, and in fact is statistically more effective than condoms (since condoms can slip and/or break). My issue is the poor effectiveness of this vaccine.

The target audience of this doesn't appear to be people who don't like reading the news. But rather people who like reading journalism that has perspective and nuance (which tend to improve when you take your time to let a story fully develop before writing about it).

The epistemic modality of my statement was implied. I obviously don't know the future.